WAS THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST PRE-FALL (Sinless) or POST-FALL (Sinful)? When I explain to an Adventist brother in writing that the SDA Reform Movement took the POST-FALL position with regards to the human nature of Christ he categorically said that the SDARM position on the humanity of Christ contradicts the teaching of the Spirit of Prophecy on this subject. He wrote to me to say that E.G.White taught that Christ at the incarnation took the PRE-FALL nature of man. Then he gave me four quotations from the writing of E.G. White that allegedly taught the PRE-FALL position on the human nature of Christ. The following are the quotations and his comments: (1) “We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.” (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, EGW’s Comments, vol. 5, p. 1131). It is clear in this quotation that Christ has sinless human nature. It does NOT refer to the sinlessness of LIFE of the human nature of Christ but to the SINLESSNESS of the HUMAN NATURE of Christ. It is in contrast to the sinfulness of the “nature of man,” such as the apostles and prophets who are near to God (Acts of the Apostles, p. 561). (2) “He (Christ) vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcame by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour’s Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power.” (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, EGW’s Comments, vol. 7, p. 942). This quotation refers to the same PRE-FALL human nature in Eden which Christ took. (3) “Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness connected with God and beloved of God, He began where the first Adam began” (My Life Today, p. 323). Adam began with a PRE-FALL human nature. So, Christ began with a pre-fall human nature. (4) “Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin… Jesus has no ‘propensities of sin’, whereas, the posterity of Adam ‘was born with inherent propensities of disobedience” (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, EGW’s Comments, vol. 5, p. 1128). That absence of propensities of sin in Jesus is the difference between the pre-fall human nature of Jesus and the post-fall human nature of the posterity of Adam. PRE-FALL Nature arguments answered In reply I told my Adventist brother that I do not believe that the POST-FALL position taken by the SDARM on the humanity of Christ contradicts the teaching of the Spirit of Prophecy on this subject. Rather, this POST-FALL view harmonized with the teaching of the S.O.P. for the following reasons: 1. First, the post-fall view is based on solid biblical evidence and the SOP does not contradict the bible. The Bible clearly teaches that God send “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), that he “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), and that “he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren…” (Heb. 2:16, 17). This post-lapsarian position has a solid biblical foundation and it could stand even without the support of the writings of Sis. E.G.White. It is therefore improbable that she will teach contrary to a well established biblical truth. 2. Second, Sister White was given a clear view that Christ took the sinful/fallen nature of man at the incarnation. In 1848, Ellen White was given a vision “concerning the great controversy of the ages between Christ and Satan.” Ten years later at Lovett’s Grove, Ohio, the vision was repeated with instruction to write it. The result was the book, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1. (Life Sketches, p. 162) In chapter III – “the Plan of Salvation” we read: “Jesus also told them [the unfallen angels] that they should have a part to act, to be with him, and at different times strengthen him. That he should take mans fallen nature, and his strength would not be even equal with theirs.” 1 SG 25 The plan that Jesus will take man’s fallen nature was announced to the unfallen angels and eventually known by the fallen angels. Ellen White wrote of the reaction of Satan to this plan as follows: “Satan again rejoiced with his angels that he could, by causing mans fall, pull down the Son of God from his exalted position. He told his angels that when Jesus should take fallen mans nature, he could overpower him, and hinder the accomplishment of the plan of salvation.” 1 SG 27 In the 4th volume of Spiritual Gift Ellen White wrote: “It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satans temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted.” (p. 115). With the clear revelation given to Ellen White that Christ took the fallen nature of man, she would be an unfaithful prophetess should she teach contrary to this truth revealed to her. This would be the case if it is true that in her writings it is found that she taught that “Christ’s humanity was the PRE-FALL humanity of Adam. 3. Third, we admit that like apostle Paul, there are statements in Ellen White’s writings that are “hard to be understood” and is liable to be misunderstood to mean that she was teaching that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall. But if we believe in the consistency of the SOP we must seek to understand ambiguous statements in harmony with the clear passages on the same subject. We are not to base doctrine on an obscure passage. If one passage seems to teach something, but another passage clearly teaches something else, seek to understand the difficult passage in light of the one that is easier to understand. The few examples cited by my Adventist brother that seem to teach that Ellen White taught the pre-lapsarian view, when properly analyzed, does not actually teach such a thing. Let us examine these statements: A. “We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.” (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, EGW’s Comments, vol. 5, p. 1131). If you have only this one sentence, you may conclude that EGW is teaching that the “human nature of Christ” that he inherited from Mary is “sinless.” Thus my Adventist brother wrote: “It is clear in this quotation that Christ has sinless human nature. It does NOT refer to the sinlessness of LIFE of the human nature of Christ but to the SINLESSNESS of the HUMAN NATURE of Christ. It is in contrast to the sinfulness of the “nature of man,” such as the apostles and prophets who are near to God (Acts of the Apostles, p. 561).” Let us see the context of the statement in 5BC 1131. We read: “In taking upon Himself mans nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He knew no sin. He was the lamb without blemish and without spot. Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviours head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope. “We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. Our faith must be an intelligent faith, looking unto Jesus in perfect confidence, in full and entire faith in the atoning sacrifice (ST June 9, 1898).” The position that the “sinless human nature does NOT refer to the sinlessness of LIFE of the human nature of Christ but to the SINLESSNESS of the HUMAN NATURE of Christ” is an out-of-context interpretation. First, it makes Ellen White inconsistent in her teaching, writing one thing in one paragraph and contradicts it in the next paragraph. Second, this interpretation contradicts the clear statement of EGW in the first sentence of the preceding paragraph. Here, EGW clearly define that the nature that Christ took at the incarnation was our sinful nature. The first sentence reads: “In taking upon Himself mans nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.” Contextually, taking the two paragraphs together, Ellen White is not talking about the sinlessness of the human nature of Christ per se, but about the sinless life of Christ while living in our fallen nature that he took. Consider the following points. After affirming the fact that Christ took “upon Himself mans nature in its fallen condition,” Ellen White immediately add that “Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.” Then she further elaborate on this fact saying, “He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, ‘that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.’ He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He ‘knew no sin.’ He was the lamb ‘without blemish and without spot.’ Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviours head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.” The main point of the paragraph is the fact that “Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.” This thought was repeated two times as follows: “He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are… yet He knew no sin,” and “He was the lamb without blemish and without spot.” It is in the context of these statements that we are to understand the sentence, “We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.” Ellen White is talking here about the fact that Jesus lived a sinless life in human nature in its fallen condition. Thus contextually, the “sinlessness” of Christ is in his life in human flesh and not in the “human nature” that he took upon himself. Why not? Because she already defined the nature that Christ took upon himself as “man’s nature in its fallen condition.” Therefore she could not turn around and say that Christ’s human nature was sinless. The difficulty is in the phrase “sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.” This expression when lifted out of context would seem to teach that Christ took the sinless nature of man before the fall. But understanding the expression contextually, it means that “In taking upon Himself mans nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.” It means that though Christ “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet He knew no sin. B. “He (Christ) vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour’s Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power.” (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, EGW’s Comments, vol. 7, p. 942). This paragraph was quoted from Youth Instructor, April 25, 1901 but the first and last sentences were omitted. To get the context here is the whole paragraph: “When Christ bowed his head and died, he bore the pillars of Satans kingdom with him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in his human nature. The power of the Saviours Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power. This is the privilege of all. In proportion to our faith will be our victory.” Take note that the whole article in the Youth Instructor does not seek to define the nature that Christ took at the incarnation. It is a running commentary on the death of Jesus Christ. In the concluding paragraph Ellen White noted that “When Christ bowed his head and died, he bore the pillars of Satans kingdom with him to the earth.” What does she mean? She explains: “He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory.” If you stop here in the second sentence you may think that since Adam’s nature when Satan assailed him was sinless, so Christ’s human nature must also be sinless since “He vanquished Satan in the same nature.” But this is only in the realm of interpretation because in this paragraph and in the entire article EGW never said that Christ’s human nature was “sinless” or “sinful.” As such, any interpretation must be evaluated according to the context and the overall teaching of the author on the subject. Based on the context our understanding is that Christ’s human nature was not the pre-fall but the post-fall nature. How did we come to this understanding? Let us remember that in the second sentence EGW elucidate what she meant in the first sentence. Then she explains in the third sentence what she meant in the second sentence. What did she mean when she said, “He [Christ] vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory?” She explains in the third sentence, “The enemy was overcome by Christ in his human nature. The emphasis here is that Christ overcame (vanquished) Satan in his human nature, and not by his own divine power as God. That this was the point of E.G.White is evident in the next sentence which reads: “The power of the Saviours Godhead was hidden.” That means Christ did not use his divine power to overcome or vanquish Satan. The question arises, how could Jesus vanquish Satan in his human nature? Does his human nature have enough power to overcome Satan? The fifth sentence explains, “He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power.” Apparently, Jesus knows that his human nature has no power to vanquish Satan and his only hope of victory is to rely upon God (the Father) for power to overcome. If Jesus’ human nature was like that of Adam’s unfallen nature, then he does not have to rely on God’s power in order to overcome Satan. Why not? Because an unfallen nature is capable of resisting the temptation of Satan. We read: “It was possible for Adam, before the fall, to form a righteous character by obedience to Gods law. But he failed to do this, and because of his sin our natures are fallen and we cannot make ourselves righteous. Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law.” SC 62. Here we see the contrast between the pre-fall and post-fall nature. With a sinless nature, Adam could form a righteous character amidst the temptation of Satan without relying upon God for power. But Adam and Eve failed to overcome Satan, not that they could not, but that they did not overcome Satan. As a result, “their nature had become depraved by sin” (PP 61) and a sinful nature such as we have, “cannot perfectly obey the holy law.” Jesus knew that he was born with a “sinful nature” that “cannot perfectly obey the holy law.” Therefore he has to rely upon God’s power to obey God’s law and that was how he overcame Satan in “human nature.” Is there proof that Jesus knew that his human nature was the fallen nature of Adam? Certainly! Even while in heaven he told his angels that “he should take mans fallen nature, and his strength would not be even equal with theirs.” 1 SG 24; 4 SG 115. That is why when we read that “He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power” we are to understand that his “human nature” was not the “pre-fall” nature but the post-fall nature. This interpretation is reinforced by the sixth sentence in the paragraph under consideration that says, “This is the privilege of all.” The privilege of all is to overcome as Christ overcame Satan in human nature, relying upon God for power. It is not the privilege of all to overcome with a sinless nature, therefore Christ could not have overcome Satan with a sinless nature. Back to the sentence “He [Christ] vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory?” Actually there is one word that was omitted in this sentence that changes the original meaning. The statement from the Youth Instructor, April 25, 1901 as published in the first Edition of The Commentary, Vol. 7, reads: “He [Christ] vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan had obtained the victory?” The word “had” was in the original but was omitted in later edition. With the “had” in place the meaning of the sentence would mean that Christ overcame in the same nature of Adam after Satan overcome him. But the omission of “had” gives the sentence the meaning that Christ overcame Satan with the same nature that Adam had when Satan assailed and overcome him. But the context will still bring out the truth that Christ overcame Satan in human nature, which is none other than our sinful nature. C. “Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness connected with God and beloved of God, He began where the first Adam began” (My Life Today, p. 323). Let us see the context of this statement. We read: “Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adams failure. “But the first Adam was in every way more favorably situated than was Christ. The wonderful provision made for man in Eden was made by a God who loved him. Everything in nature was pure and undefiled. . . . Not a shadow interposed between them {Adam and Eve} and their Creator. They knew God as their beneficent Father, and in all things their will was conformed to the will of God. . . . “But Satan came to the dwellers in Eden and insinuated doubts of Gods wisdom. He accused Him, their Heavenly Father and Sovereign, of selfishness, because, to test their loyalty, He had prohibited them from eating of the tree of knowledge. . . . “Christ was tempted by Satan in a hundredfold severer manner than was Adam, and under circumstances in every way more trying. The deceiver presented himself as an angel of light, but Christ withstood his temptations. He redeemed Adams disgraceful fall, and saved the world. . . . “In His human nature He maintained the purity of His divine character. He lived the law of God, and honored it in a world of transgression, revealing to the heavenly universe, to Satan, and to all the fallen sons and daughters of Adam that through His grace humanity can keep the law of God. He came to impart His own divine nature, His own image, to the repentant, believing soul.” My Life Today, p. 323 Let us analyze the above statements: 1. “Christ is called the second Adam.” This is true. But Christ being called the second Adam has nothing to do with his having a sinless nature because it is clear from the bible and SOP that he was born with a “sinful nature.” The first Adam was constituted as head of humanity. By his sin, all men were made sinners. In like manner, Jesus, as the second Adam was constituted as head of humanity. By his obedience, all men shall be made righteous. (Rom. 5:18-20) 2. “In purity and holiness” does not refer to his human nature being “pure and holy” but to the purity and holiness of his character. In the 4th paragraph EGW explains: “In His human nature He maintained the purity of His divine character. He lived the law of God, and honored it in a world of transgression, revealing to the heavenly universe, to Satan, and to all the fallen sons and daughters of Adam that through His grace humanity can keep the law of God.” 3. “He began where the first Adam began.” Some understood this to mean that since “Adam began with a PRE-FALL human nature. So, Christ began with a pre-fall human nature.” But this would contradict what Jesus told to his holy angels that “he should take mans fallen nature.” 1 SG 24; 4 SG 115. Christ “began where the “first Adam began” does not refer to how he began his life as a man. The clue is in the next sentence, “Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adams failure.” Where Christ began relates to his work in redeeming Adam’s failure. Where did Adam begin his downward fall and where did Jesus begin his work of redeeming Adam’s failure? Let us read what EGW said: “With Christ, as with the holy pair in Eden, appetite was the ground of the first great temptation. Just where the ruin began, the work of our redemption must begin. As by the indulgence of appetite Adam fell, so by the denial of appetite Christ must overcome.” DA 117. Adam’s failure began with Satan’s temptation on the point of appetite and he failed. “Just where the ruin began, the work of our redemption must begin.” Before Christ commenced his public ministry, he was brought by the Holy Spirit to the wilderness to be tempted of the devil (Matt. 4:1) As Adam was first tempted on the point of appetite and failed, so Christ was first tempted on the point of appetite and by the “denial of appetite Christ” came out victorious. Thus EGW said, “Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adams failure.” D. “Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.” (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, EGW’s Comments, vol. 5, p. 1128). My Adventist friend conclude from the above statement: “That absence of propensities of sin in Jesus is the difference between the pre-fall human nature of Jesus and the post-fall human nature of the posterity of Adam.” But this is not the case. Let us analyze the statement: a. In the above statement EGW did not say that Christ took the “pre-fall nature” of man. On the contrary this is what she said about the human nature of Christ: “He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted.” She did not define in this paragraph whether the “human nature” that Christ “took upon himself” was pre-fall or post-fall nature, but we need not guest as to what she meant when she said “He took upon Himself human nature” because she has made it clear in many of her writings that Christ took the sinful nature of man. (5BC 1081, 1082, 1004; DA 24, 49). By “human nature” she must have meant “sinful nature” because that is what Christ said he will take even while he was in heaven. (1 SG 24; 4 SG 115) b. We accept the admonition to “Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ.” Every Adventists should do well to heed this counsel. c. “Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin.” Certainly! We are not to present him as “a man with the propensities of sin.” In her writings, EGW equates the terms “propensities of sin” with “sinful tendencies,” and “inclination to corruption” and use them interchangeably in her writings. She made mention in many places about “hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong” (4BC 1138, 1154, 1160, DA 671). But in the paragraph under consideration here EGW did not clarify what kind of “propensities of sin” she meant. But in the third paragraph down she indicates that she is talking about the cultivated tendencies and not the inherited tendencies to wrong. She wrote: “Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption.” The expression not “a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ” indicates that EGW is talking about “cultivated tendencies.” This is reinforced by the statement that he did not “in any way yielded to temptation.” Thus we are not to teach that Christ in “any way yielded to corruption” for while he was tempted in all points as we are tempted, yet he did not sin. Because he did not sin even once, not “a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ,” and so he has no cultivated tendencies to wrong or “propensities of sin.” The absence of (cultivated) propensities of sin in Jesus is the difference between the post-fall human nature of Jesus and the post-fall human nature of the other posterity of Adam. But we should not go too far and say that Christ did not “inherit any sinful tendencies.” This would be going against the doctrine of the church that “In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature…Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherited – a sinful nature.” Bible Readings for the Home Circle, page 21 (1916 edition). EGW agrees with this position of the church. She wrote: “It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take mans nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.” DA 48 d. “He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing.” This we agree. e. “Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience.” This is true. In Heb. 2:16 Paul said that Christ “took on him the seed of Abraham.” And in Rom. 1:3 Jesus “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Matthew and Luke trace the genealogy of Jesus humanity to Adam. This means that Jesus humanity belong to the “posterity” of Adam. This being the case, Christ at the incarnation must have been “born with inherent propensities of disobedience.” f. “He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” “Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity” simply means he did not sin, he did not fall. Thus what EGW meant was “He could have sinned; he could have fallen, but he did not sin, he did not fall.” Christ’s sinlessness is here placed in contrast with Adam’s failure. Of Adam EGW said that, “He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing.” Conclusion We have examined the four major references used to show that the postlapsarian view of the SDARM is inconsistent and contrary to the teaching of the SOP on the human nature of Christ. The allegation that EGW taught that Christ took the fallen nature of man in one place and taught that he took the sinless nature of man before the fall in another place is found to be untrue. Both the Bible and the SOP consistently teach that Christ took the post-fall nature of man as he was made of the seed of Abraham and of David (Rom. 1:3; 9:3; Heb. 2:15-18). This position taken by the SDARM that they inherited from the SDA church where they came from is perfectly in harmony with the Bible and the SOP. Consequently, the new teaching of the SDA church promulgated during the1980 GC session is the one that is unbiblical and out of harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy. The SDA church moved from the postlapsarian view of the human nature of Christ to the new teaching which is neither fallen nor sinless, but a unique nature that is partly fallen and partly sinless. This new teaching was explained as follows: “Thus ‘Christ’s humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before he fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin.” Seventh-day Adventists Believe…, page 47. Why this new teaching on the incarnation of Christ? How did it began? From where was this teaching imported? Let Elder William H. Grotheer, veteran SDA minister and editor of “Watchman, What of the Night?” explains to us. He wrote: “The confusion and conflict within Adventism today over the doctrine of the incarnation which blunts our warfare against the great words of “the little horn” is the result of the compromise during the SDA-Evangelical Conference in 1955-1956…The production of the SDA-Evangelical Conference – Questions on Doctrine – teaches that Christ took fallen human nature ‘vicariously’ even as he bore our sins, and not something ‘innately’ His. (pp. 59-60) The book emphatically states – “Although born in the flesh, He was nevertheless God, and was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupts the natural descendants of Adam.” (p. 383) The choice of the word, “exempt” was not an accident, but the very word used by Cardinal Gibbons in defining the immaculate conception – “She (Mary) alone was exempt from the original taint.” (See p. 2, col. 1) This book has never been repudiated, and as late as 1983 was officially reaffirmed. “In the most current book on Adventist teaching, Seventh-day Adventists Believe…, a book which discusses each of the 27 fundamental Statements of Belief as voted in Dallas, Texas, in 1980, the teachings of an Anglican preacher are hailed as “the orthodox doctrine” on the incarnation. (Footnote #13, p. 57) His position is actually quoted in the body of the book itself. It reads: “Thus ‘Christ’s humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before he fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin.” (p. 47) [By “innocent infirmities,” Melville, the Anglican clergyman meant, hunger, pain, and sorrow.] “Here is semantic verbage which leaves the doctrine of the incarnation in the same state as given in Questions on Doctrine without the use of the strong word “exempt.” Even the Roman Church would accept that Mary also had the “innocent infirmities” as defined by Melville. No one holding the Biblical concept that Christ too upon Himself fallen human nature would teach that he descended into moral impurity, but that He did live a sinless life in that fallen nature.” Watchman, What of the Night? Vol. IV, no. 4. P. 4. M.L.Andreasen in his “Letters to the churches” p. 8 reports that the leadership of the SDA Church repudiated the post-fall view of the humanity of Jesus during their dialogue with the Evangelicals (Walter Martin and Donald Gray Barnhouse) in 1955-1956. How does Prof. Andreasen view this action of the leadership of the church in repudiating the original doctrine of the incarnation and other points of doctrines? On page 12 he wrote: “I am a Seventh-day Adventist, and I love this message that I have preached for so long. I grieved deeply as I see the foundation pillars being destroyed, the blessed truths that have made us what we are abandoned.”
Posted on: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:08:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015